You do know it was Labour who sold off the naval version of harrier, don't you?
Which left the navy using the RAF Harriers from carriers. Now the Conservatives have sold all our remaining Harriers to the US Marines, scrapped the old carriers and cannot work out what to do with the new ones.
Which sadly is rubbish. Geoff Hoon sold the Fleet Air Arm down the river by creating Joint Force Harrier, which gave the RAF equal control over the Harriers. Once that happened, it was not long before the Sea Harriers were got rid of (because they were not much use to the RAF). This left the FAA without any radar fixed-wing aircraft for deployments. A crazy decision.
Then the Harriers started being used extensively in Afghanistan, meaning there were not enough for the FAA to use. Which mean our carriers essentially became just helicopter carriers. The RAF did not want the Harriers on the carriers - inter-service rivalry ruled.
When the budget curs came, the RAF had to choose what to get rid of, and they chose the Harrier for the obvious reasons.
As I have mentioned passim, under the last government HMS Invincible was technically still in the fleet from 2005 whilst minus engines, which had been scavenged or her sister ships. It was apparently available on 18-months notice - very useful. Some said at the time that she'd never go to sea again under her own power because of damage done.
And finally, the problems of the QEII carriers comes down firmly onto the specification and design phases, which happened under Labour. The last government said the carriers were being designed to enable CATOBAR equipment to be easily installed at a later date.
They lied.
As for keeping 'a few' Harriers, how many do you think they needed to have enough for operations, and also training? Answer: the number is more than a few.
TUD..You don't seem to give a toss about anything..maybe that is your problem The orignal remark on here, by Redcliffe I think, was that the Scots weere deemed to be expendable as opposed to other regiments or battalions in the British Military...No evidence has been produced to back that up.. do you have any,.
I certainly don't give a toss about silly, old fools and their illiteracies.
. I said that 26.4% casualties in WW1 wereScottisH
Comments
Then the Harriers started being used extensively in Afghanistan, meaning there were not enough for the FAA to use. Which mean our carriers essentially became just helicopter carriers. The RAF did not want the Harriers on the carriers - inter-service rivalry ruled.
When the budget curs came, the RAF had to choose what to get rid of, and they chose the Harrier for the obvious reasons.
As I have mentioned passim, under the last government HMS Invincible was technically still in the fleet from 2005 whilst minus engines, which had been scavenged or her sister ships. It was apparently available on 18-months notice - very useful. Some said at the time that she'd never go to sea again under her own power because of damage done.
And finally, the problems of the QEII carriers comes down firmly onto the specification and design phases, which happened under Labour. The last government said the carriers were being designed to enable CATOBAR equipment to be easily installed at a later date.
They lied.
As for keeping 'a few' Harriers, how many do you think they needed to have enough for operations, and also training? Answer: the number is more than a few.